McDade v. Siazon
208 N.J. 463
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Michael McDade was injured on January 22, 2006, by a raised pipe on a public sidewalk owned by Egg Harbor Township, but the pipe was owned and controlled by the Egg Harbor Township Municipal Utility Authority (MUA).
- Plaintiffs served a Tort Claims Act notice on April 13, 2006 directed to the Township, Atlantic County, and the State, but did not name the MUA.
- Within the 90-day period, there was no notice served on the MUA; plaintiffs did not identify the pipe owner during that period.
- On August 21, 2006, plaintiffs learned the pipe was under the MUA’s jurisdiction, and on August 22, 2006 sent an amended notice naming the MUA, but still treated as timely to the wrong entity.
- Plaintiffs did not file a motion for leave to file a late notice under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 within the one-year period after accrual.
- Almost two years after the accident, on January 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a complaint naming several defendants including the MUA; the trial court denied summary judgment relying on a discovery rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery tolling applies to accrual or filing deadlines | McDade argues discovery delayed accrual until August 21, 2006. | MUA argues discovery cannot delay accrual unless properly invoked under 59:8-9 and proper notice to the correct entity. | Discovery rule does not toll accrual; not properly invoked. |
| Whether late notice under 59:8-9 could have cured untimely notice | Plaintiffs should be allowed to file late notice due to extraordinary circumstances. | Public entity not prejudiced and procedural requirements unmet; no late notice relief. | Late-notice relief was not pursued; not available here |
| Whether serving notice on the Township, rather than the MUA, satisfies 59:8-8 when the injury involved the MUA’s pipe | Notice to Township was sufficient because the injury was linked to the public entity’s broader jurisdiction. | Notice must be filed with the specific local entity involved; Township notice was insufficient. | Strict statutory requirement; notice to wrong entity invalid |
| Whether equitable estoppel can excuse noncompliance with Tort Claims Act notice | Equitable estoppel should apply to prevent manifest injustice due to failing to identify the true owner. | Equitable estoppel rarely applied against governmental entities and not shown here. | Equitable estoppel does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (2000) (discovery rule tolls accrual; then must assess extraordinary circumstances and prejudice)
- Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134 (1988) (balancing extraordinary circumstances and prejudice for late notices)
- Blank v. City of Elizabeth, 162 N.J. 150 (1999) (extraordinary circumstances require diligent investigation promptly after accident)
- Leidy v. County of Ocean, 398 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2008) (no extraordinary circumstances where plaintiff failed to investigate ownership timely)
- S.E.W. Friel Co. v. N.J. Tp. Auth., 73 N.J. 107 (1977) (no substantial prejudice standard used in evaluating late notices)
- Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973) (determines accrual and discovery principles in tort claims)
- Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555 (2010) (applies discovery rule considerations in accrual analysis)
- Hill v. Board of Education of the Township of Middletown, 183 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 1982) (equitable estoppel considerations limited and dependent on notice conduct)